Abstract
Aim: To clarify the bond strength of Theracem in comparison to other types of adhesive material, in addition to testing the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Material and Methods: A hundred extracted human premolars were collected for orthodontic purposes. Teeth were stored in 1% Chloramine-T trihydrate as bacteriostatic/bactericidal solution for one week; then, they were transmitted into distilled water. The buccal surface of the studied teeth was kept under surveillance and mounted in acrylic block. Siamese metal pre-adjusted premolar brackets were fixed on the buccal surface using three adhesive cements: Bisco ORTHO, GC Fuji ORTHO LC (Light Cure) and Theracem. The teeth were randomly divided into five groups of 20 specimens each. Group 1 (G1) used 37% phosphoric acid gel, Bisco primer, and Bisco adhesive. Group 2 (G2) used GC Fuji ORTHO LC (Light Cure) without etching. Group 3 (G3) used GC Fuji ORTHO LC (Light Cure) with etching. Group 4 (G4) used Theracem without etching. Group 5 (G5) used Theracem with etching. All the tested specimens were kept at 370°C in a distilled water bath for 24 h. Shear bond strength (SBS) was conducted using a universal microcomputer-controlled electronic test machine. Then, specimens’ surfaces were assessed under a stereomicroscope with a 10× magnification to examine the orthodontics adhesive residue’s buccal surface and scored using ARI. Results: The G4 exhibited the lowest mean bond strength value (M = 11.24, SD = 3.52), whereas G3 yielded the highest bond strength value (M = 25.02, SD = 3.41). The variance analysis revealed F = 61.71, indicating a significant difference among the bond strength values (P < .001). Tukey HSD post hoc testing demonstrated a significant difference in bond strength among groups, except G2 with G1 and G3. Kruskal–Wallis test showed statistically significant differences among all groups (P < .001). On comparison, the least adhesives that remained on the tooth surface were in G4 and G5. Conclusion: Theracem bonding system provides many advantages, as there is no need for an acid-etching step, it is easy to manipulate, and it provides a very suitable S.B.S. with no enamel detachment during debonding. Also, scores 0 and 1 in the ARI test lead to a decrease in enamel damage.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
